[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-26215?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16703233#comment-16703233
]
Wenchen Fan commented on SPARK-26215:
-------------------------------------
> Is "In Spark SQL, we are too tolerant about non-reserved keywords" meaning
> that we have too many non-reserved keywords which should be defined as
> reserved keywords?
Yes
> I am wondering if we should create an umbrella JIRA for SQL standard
> compliance in 3.0
sure, feel free to create one. BTW maybe SQL2003 is good enough, but we should
follow the latest standard if there is a conflict: e.g. 2003 says a keyword is
non-reserved, but 2011 says it's not, we should follow 2011.
> define reserved keywords after SQL standard
> -------------------------------------------
>
> Key: SPARK-26215
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-26215
> Project: Spark
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: SQL
> Affects Versions: 2.4.0
> Reporter: Wenchen Fan
> Priority: Major
>
> There are 2 kinds of SQL keywords: reserved and non-reserved. Reserved
> keywords can't be used as identifiers.
> In Spark SQL, we are too tolerant about non-reserved keywors. A lot of
> keywords are non-reserved and sometimes it cause ambiguity (IIRC we hit a
> problem when improving the INTERVAL syntax).
> I think it will be better to just follow other databases or SQL standard to
> define reserved keywords, so that we don't need to think very hard about how
> to avoid ambiguity.
> For reference: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.1/sql-keywords-appendix.html
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: issues-h...@spark.apache.org
